I don’t get it.

Every time some new hardware format appears you hear the usual carping along the lines of “Why do we need another lens mount”, “Why do we need another manufacturer”, “Why do we need another storage format” and so on. This is invariably followed up with “I have too big an investment in Brand X” and “Brand Y does not know how to make cameras”.

This thinking has me puzzled. My daily snapper currently comes from a company better known for washing machines and toasters, Panasonic. It has a unique lens mount and a unique format in the G1. Yes, I can adapt just about every lens known to man to fit but it makes no sense to do so as the camera then loses many of the automated features which make it so appealing.

When I bought it I didn’t think making toasters and washing machines was a problem. In fact, given the maker’s reputation, I saw it as a positive. And as for that ‘investment’ thinking, please. A camera is a consumer (not very) durable and depreciates daily. There is no investment aspect to it unless you are a collector of antiques, which are useless for photography. It’s simply a tool which loses value over time.

Given that I will likely dump the G1 for something better soon, I couldn’t be better pleased with my return on ‘investment’ which will look something like this:

Pictures taken: 10,000
Pictures retained: 2,000
Loss on resale of body: $250

Thus, my ‘cost per keeper’ is some 12 cents or so.

If you ask me, at the price of a couple of really nice dinners that’s the bargain of the decade, but it sure as heck is not an investment.

Dummy. (Depreciated) G1, kit lens in Little Italy, San Francisco.